The CBS show, Sixty Minutes II, which was aired last Tuesday on U.S.Missile Defense and evidence of U.S. Government and Contractor fraud, wassimply powerful television. Millions of viewers got to see a taped livetelecast of Command Headquarters at the Pentagon to witness the second ofthree rigged missile defense test failures. That last failed test cost U.S.taxpayers about $100 million. Dr. Nira Schwartz, a soft-spoken former TRWemployee whistle blower, is like the mouse that roared. Her honesty andcourage, and association with Dr. Ted Postol of MIT, is truly inspiring,with all the best elements of their being true American heroes. The showended with the positions of George Bush and Al Gore on missile defense; bothwere in favor of current missile defense work, but the Bush/Cheney ticketwould be much more aggressive in financing this expensive, wasteful anddeceitful direction.

With such a tight election brewing, our communications via theInternet could make all the difference in the first election of the 21stCentury. Many folks are highly principled in their voting for Ralph Naderand believe that the voting of a lesser evil is still evil, but you canalways look at this another way and realize that the pathway to hell ispaved with the best of intentions. A win/win solution is a possible solutionto have your cake and to eat it, too.

The following is from http://www.nadertrader.org

What's a Nader Trader?

A Nader Trader is someone who is leaning toward Ralph Nader in aswing state, but agrees to discuss hisor her vote with a Gore-voting friend in a state that's strongly expected togo for Bush. In other words, you might want to vote for Gore in your swingstate, while your friend casts a vote for Nader in a Bush-safe state, whereit will not do harm to the Gore/Lieberman ticket. It's an easy way to tipthe electoral balance away from Bush while preserving the national totalsfor the Green Party. If enough people consider this option, there is a veryreal chance that the Green Party's power will be increased AND that GeorgeW. Bush and his cronies will be kept out of the White House.

If you're a Gore supporter in a state that's strongly expected to gofor Bush, phone or email a friend in a swing state who you think might beleaning toward Nader. If you're a Nader supporter in a swing state, contacta friend in a secure state for Bush. Even if you don't fit these categories,you can still play a crucial part by passing on this idea through forwardingthis via email, telling as many friends as possible so that everyone hearsabout it by election day. Encourage friends who may receive a partial emailto visithttp://www.nadertrader.org for more information.

Where are the swing states?

The state-by-state information at http://www.abcnews.com has beenkeeping a running assessment of whatstates are considered tossups, and they now include information about howstrongly each state is leaning toward one candidate. Don't just guess aboutthe status of yours-- visit the site (and others like it) or read on.

At the time of this writing (Wednesday, 11/1/00), there are over 150electoral votes among tossup states.

Many voters in these tossup states would like to cast a vote forNader, but are unwilling to put Bush in the White House. Are you one ofthem? If so, contact friends and family about moving your Nader vote out ofyour swing states. Bring a Gore vote from a Bush-secure state into yourswing state. Move your Nader vote to a Bush state.

Where are the Bush-secure states?

Even the quickest look at the electoral map will make you realizethat there are a lot of states that are secure for Bush. There are millionsof Gore voters in these states who would love to cast a meaningful vote inthis election. They're currently stuck in a state that will go for Bush.These Gore voters in Bush-secure states should contact friends and familyabout bringing a vote for Nader into their state while their desire to votefor Gore will appear in a swing state.

Bush-Secure States Include:

Texas Mississippi Alabama Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Virginia Montana Idaho Wyoming North and South Dakota

Isn't California secure for Gore?

Nader Traders should realize that California is not a secure statefor Gore. This cannot be overemphasized. Recent polls have shown aonce-strong California lead for Gore has eroded, leaving California asmerely leaning toward Gore with significant support for Nader. ManyCalifornia voters have seen recent articles in the LA Times and other papersabout the threat of Nader to Gore's chances in California. Gore voters inCalifornia should not switch their votes to Nader under any circumstances.

California voters interested in Nader should contact friends andfamily in Bush-safe states. Move those Nader votes down to Texas where theywon't hurt anybody!

How might this help Nader's candidacy?

The benefits of the Nader Trader idea for the Gore/Liebermancampaign are obvious. But the idea will also almost certainly help Nader andthe Green Party as well. Potential Nader supporters who had been reluctant(but willing) to vote for Gore can now be encouraged to find partners inother states, actually raising Nader's national vote total! Thus, it's inthe best interest of all Nader and Gore supporters to work together tospread the word about Nader Trader.

Is Ralph Nader on the ballot in all 50 states?

No, and NaderTraders should take this into account when talking withfriends and family. The map on Nader's official site currently shows thatNorth Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota are the three states where Naderis neither on the ballot nor will be counted as a write-in. Write-ins forNader will be allowed in Georgia, Indiana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Ralph is onthe ballot in the remaining states.

Is it legal?

"A spokesperson at the U.S. Justice Department, which investigatespotential instances of voter fraud, said it is, since the sites 'serve as aclearing house. There is no pecuniary exchange, and it is an agreementamongst private parties, no legal violation there in terms of violationfraud. It definitely is an innovative campaign technique, to say the least.'" (excerpted from the MSNBC article of 10/27, reachable through our media page.)

There's no way for authorities to know how or why you as anindividual casts your secret ballot. Any agreement with a friend isinformal, based on your personal relationship, and is not a legal contract.Since you're contacting a personal friend about being a Nader Trader, youcan be sure your faith isn't wasted. You'll feel good about keeping Bush outof the White House, and you'll feel good about voting for progressivepolitics, too.

A vote for Nader on November 7 does not have to put George W. Bushin the White House.

We, the undersigned, endorse the following letter to Ralph Naderfrom Carl Pope, Executive Director of The Sierra Club. Furthermore, werespectfully call upon candidate Nader to cease and desist from campaigningin swing states in the 2000 presidential election, for the many reasonsstated below.

Ralph Nader Nader 2000 PO Box 18002 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ralph:

Yesterday you sent me (and many other environmentalists) a longletter defending your candidacy and attacking "the servile mentality" ofthose of us in the environmental community who are supporting Vice-PresidentGore.

I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years.

Neither the letter nor the tactics you are increasingly adopting inyour candidacy are worthy of the Ralph Nader I knew.

The heart of your letter is the argument that "the threat to ourplanet articulated by Bush and his ilk" can now be dismissed. But you offerno evidence for this crucial assertion. Based on the polls today Bush is aneven bet to become the next President, with both a Republican Senate and aRepublican House to accompany him.

You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as beinga "cold shower" for the Democratic party. You have made clear that you willconsider it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush presidency.

But what will your "cold shower" mean for real people and real places?

What will it mean for tens of millions of asthmatic children whenBush applies to the nation the "voluntary" approach he's using in Texas toclean up the air. And what about his stated opposition to enforcingenvironmental standards against corporations?

What will it mean for Americans vulnerable to water pollution whenBush allows water quality standards to be degraded to meet the needs ofpaper mills and refineries as he has consistently done in Texas, mostrecently at Lake Sam Rayburn? And what if he eliminates federal financialsupport for both drinking water and water pollution, as his budget calls forand his record in Texas (46th in spending on drinking water) suggests?

What will it mean for communities of color and poverty located neartoxic waste sites, when Bush applies his Texas approach of lower standardsand lower polluter liability to toxic waste clean-up?

What will a Bush election mean to the Gwich'in people of the Arctic,when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is turned over the oil companiesand the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd on which they dependare destroyed and despoiled?

What will it mean for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwestwhen Bush amends the Endangered Species Act to make extinction for theendangered salmon a legally acceptable option? If he refuses to remove thedams on the Snake River or reduce timber cutting levels to preserve salmon?

What will it mean for millions of rural Americans whose livelihood,health and communities are being destroyed by unregulated factory feedingoperations, if Bush weakens the Clean Water Act? When he appoints SupremeCourt justices who complete the task of shutting down access to federalcourts for citizens trying to enforce environmental laws?

What will it mean for the wildlife that depend upon our NationalForests when Bush undoes the Clinton-Gore Administration reforms, reversestheir roadless area protection policy, and restores the timber industry tothe mastery of the forests and the Forest Service that it enjoyed under hisfather? If he doubles, or triples, the cut on those Forests?

What will it mean for millions of people in Bangladesh and otherlow-lying countries when an American refusal to confront the problem ofglobal warming unleashes the floods and typhoons of a rising ocean upon them?

Your letter addresses none of these real consequences of a Bushvictory. Nor has your campaign. Instead, you indulge yourself in thelanguage of academic discourse when you claim:

"Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination ashumanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a languageeffectively discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muirto David Brower. Bush's blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporatefavor as it loses popular support. It is a language of politics fadingrapidly, and without a future."

Candidate Bush may well be speaking a fading language. So wascandidate Reagan in 1980 when he ranted that trees caused air pollution. Itis power, however, not language, that determines policy. President Bushwould be vested with the powers of the government of the United States, andhe is an even more devoted servant of environmental counter-revolution thanReagan ever was.

Because your letter is couched in this language, so divorced fromthe real world consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choicesthat face Americans, it is difficult to respond to all of its selectivemisrepresentations and inaccuracies. A few samples, however, may show youwhy I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy has taken:

You claim that "Earth in the Balance" was "an advertisement for hiscalculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur." Can youoffer a single piece of evidence to support this quite astonishing statement?

You claim that the Clinton Administration stood up to the oilindustry on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only because "focus groupshave shown him he cannot give" it up. In fact, most polls show that thepublic is somewhat split on this issue, and there are certainly no focusgroups I know of showing that it is a third-rail which no President cancross at his peril. Can you cite your evidence?

You lament that the Administration has "set aside lands not inNational Parks, but rather in National Monuments...." You are surely awarethat a President cannot legally create national parks, which require an actor Congress; nor can you be under the misapprehension that this Congresswith Don Young as the head of the House Resources Committee and FrankMurkowski as his counterpart in the Senate would have designated these areasas parks however long a battle Clinton and Gore might have fought. No, yousimply took a cheap shot, and ignored the facts.

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed thepetitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you wouldnot campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recentcampaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have brokenthis pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a politicalcandidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well -- you admit you are acandidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed one.

Irresponsible as I find your strategy, I accept that you genuinelybelieve in it. Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of theenvironmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategyis flawed, dangerous and reckless. Until you can answer how you will protectthe people and places who will be put in harm's way, or destroyed, by a Bushpresidency, you have no right to slander those who disagree with you as"servile."

You have called upon us to vote our hopes, not our fears. I find iteasy to do so. My hope is that by electing the best environmental Presidentin American history, Al Gore, we can move forward. My fear is that you,blinded by your anger at flaws of the Clinton-Gore Administration, may beinstrumental in electing the worst.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Pope Executive Director The Sierra Club

Please Note: While the letter above was written and distributedpublicly by Carl Pope, neither he nor the Sierra Club have been involved inany way in creating this petition based on that letter. All thoseresponsible for establishing this petition are listed below.

Sincerely,

You can sign and comment on this letter at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nader1

Note: Although Flyby News considers the statement in the last paragraph ofthe above letter that Al Gore would be the best environmental President inAmerican history as an exaggeration, we encourage you to sign and comment onthis letter with hopes of encouraging the Green Party and Ralph Nader toconsider the significant difference for the next four years in comparisonwith George Bush as President.==========================================================================Asked how he would feel on Nov. 8 if [George W. Bush] was elected, hesmiled, and even seemed to suggest he would prefer that outcome. "A bumblingTexas governor would galvanize the environmental community as never before,"he said. "The Sierra Club doubled its membership under James Watt." --NYT,11/1/00

The Bush Watch: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/bush.htm**************************************************************************You can subscribe to Post Cassini Flyby News from another address by sendingan email to noflyby@yahoo.com with "Subscribe" in subject field. You canremove your address from the Flyby News list by replying with "Remove" inthe subject field.**************************************************************************